yes, I also found it strange. We noticed that Amman and Wahl cited their Science comment asaccepted in their manuscript that is now in press in Climatic Change.

Personally I think it is convenient that this clarification gets published but I amsomewhat disapointed by the fact that a very similar content was submitted by Buerger andCubasch about one year ago and it was not even sent to reviewers (it is the paperthat finally appeared in Tellus). I think that comment was of much higher quality than Wahl´s.

Science knew of the Tellus paper, since we cite it in our response. So actuallythere is scientifically nothing new in this exchange, but it will be published in Science...

Anyway, I am happy to have more time now for more productive work and hope that Ritsondoe not bomb me with more mails in the future

eduardo

> Thanks for letting us know, Eduardo. It is strange that Science > accepted the Wahl et al. comment before yours; we were told of this > on 28-Feb and that is why you will notice, if you get to see the > latest IPCC draft, that Wahl et al. is cited but your response is not > cited! This will look strange, given that they will be published > together. Maybe it can be changed later?> > Cheers> > Tim> > At 11:31 29/03/2006, Eduardo Zorita wrote:> >Dear Tim,> >> >the comment by Wahl, Ritson and Amman and our response have been now > >accepted for> >publication in Science> >> >eduardo> > Dr Timothy J Osborn> Climatic Research Unit> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK> > e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk> phone: +44 1603 592089> fax: +44 1603 507784> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm>